Camera question
Sep 26th, 2007 | 01:23 PM
#22
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Bill-
the situation you are referring to about the 500mm lens hitting ground is actually quite different. During a quick lunch break, he rested his 500mm lens on the hood of the Land Rover, and when somebody jumped inside to grab something the movement of the vehicles caused the lens to roll off the hood. So the situation wasn't related to a bean bag at all.
I think Michael isn't a fan of the bean bags because he didn't like to move his camera around: he preferred to leave the whole setup ready to go, which I believe is a very very very bad idea. This is why his Kirk window mount shearing on him. He was simply putting too much pressure on the setup with all of the bumping around.
So both of these stories really don't have much to do with bean bags.
In my opinion, no matter what the solution is, one should expect to bring the camera and lens back into the vehicle when not in use. This greatly reduces the chances of damage.
This is obviously a sort of religious discussion, and it is nice to have options to consider. I remember on my first few safaris I brought with me no less than 3 different solutions that I would try out. In the end I decided that for my own needs I liked the beanbag the best. It weighed the least, cost the least and was useful for how I needed it to work for me. And it is scalable, as I bring around 80 people to Africa a year, and I provide these bean bags prefilled and ready to go for all travelers. I am working on my own design at the moment, and will put my first prototype into action later on this year. It is difficult to improve on an already good design, but I am trying!
the situation you are referring to about the 500mm lens hitting ground is actually quite different. During a quick lunch break, he rested his 500mm lens on the hood of the Land Rover, and when somebody jumped inside to grab something the movement of the vehicles caused the lens to roll off the hood. So the situation wasn't related to a bean bag at all.
I think Michael isn't a fan of the bean bags because he didn't like to move his camera around: he preferred to leave the whole setup ready to go, which I believe is a very very very bad idea. This is why his Kirk window mount shearing on him. He was simply putting too much pressure on the setup with all of the bumping around.
So both of these stories really don't have much to do with bean bags.
In my opinion, no matter what the solution is, one should expect to bring the camera and lens back into the vehicle when not in use. This greatly reduces the chances of damage.
This is obviously a sort of religious discussion, and it is nice to have options to consider. I remember on my first few safaris I brought with me no less than 3 different solutions that I would try out. In the end I decided that for my own needs I liked the beanbag the best. It weighed the least, cost the least and was useful for how I needed it to work for me. And it is scalable, as I bring around 80 people to Africa a year, and I provide these bean bags prefilled and ready to go for all travelers. I am working on my own design at the moment, and will put my first prototype into action later on this year. It is difficult to improve on an already good design, but I am trying!
Sep 26th, 2007 | 11:25 PM
#23
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Bill,
I understand what you are saying and I can appreciate how the sidekick would be useful. Don't misunderstand me but I think for anything less that the 500mm it is not the only solution. In Botswana, where I would most likely use it in order to stabilize from an open vehicle, we were always off-road. The terrain was unbelievably rough and we tracked wild dog for three days. I could never have covered that ground with anything mounted and set up, not even a clamp minus the camera and lens. It was all I could do to stay in my seat and keep my gear from falling. My guide knew the kind of light I wanted and I explained the kind of dog interaction I was trying to capture. When the pack came to rest, I was able to shoot in a split second. Same thing happened when we found the dogs after an impalla kill and the hyenas moved in. No time to set up just throw the bean bags on top of one another and start shooting. No way we could have positioned the 4X4, we had to improvise shooting positions. Had my rig been mounted, I would have missed some incredible images. On the other hand, I like the occasional bird shot and can see how it might help to have a Wimberly. Since I already have a Really Right Stuff 55 Ballhead, it would not be much additional investment. If I go full frame, an Andy has given me good reason to review that thought, I might be tempted to go for the 500mm lens. I don't think I would use a Wimberly in Tanz for the 500, but in Bots...I might try it on a Manfrotto clamped to the bar rail. I suppose some people can use this setup offroad, but I just can't imagine flying through the bush, all rigged up. Actually, for Botswana I would like to see someone design a way of clamping various size bean bags to the front rail. In the meantime, I continue my quest for the "perfect" Lilac Breasted Roller. Perhaps when I finally find it, I will have found my solution
.
By the way, please excuse my typos, I can't stand reading this little box to edit my posts.
Regards-Chuck
I understand what you are saying and I can appreciate how the sidekick would be useful. Don't misunderstand me but I think for anything less that the 500mm it is not the only solution. In Botswana, where I would most likely use it in order to stabilize from an open vehicle, we were always off-road. The terrain was unbelievably rough and we tracked wild dog for three days. I could never have covered that ground with anything mounted and set up, not even a clamp minus the camera and lens. It was all I could do to stay in my seat and keep my gear from falling. My guide knew the kind of light I wanted and I explained the kind of dog interaction I was trying to capture. When the pack came to rest, I was able to shoot in a split second. Same thing happened when we found the dogs after an impalla kill and the hyenas moved in. No time to set up just throw the bean bags on top of one another and start shooting. No way we could have positioned the 4X4, we had to improvise shooting positions. Had my rig been mounted, I would have missed some incredible images. On the other hand, I like the occasional bird shot and can see how it might help to have a Wimberly. Since I already have a Really Right Stuff 55 Ballhead, it would not be much additional investment. If I go full frame, an Andy has given me good reason to review that thought, I might be tempted to go for the 500mm lens. I don't think I would use a Wimberly in Tanz for the 500, but in Bots...I might try it on a Manfrotto clamped to the bar rail. I suppose some people can use this setup offroad, but I just can't imagine flying through the bush, all rigged up. Actually, for Botswana I would like to see someone design a way of clamping various size bean bags to the front rail. In the meantime, I continue my quest for the "perfect" Lilac Breasted Roller. Perhaps when I finally find it, I will have found my solution
. By the way, please excuse my typos, I can't stand reading this little box to edit my posts.
Regards-Chuck
Sep 27th, 2007 | 06:16 AM
#24
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 0
<b>I can appreciate how the sidekick would be useful.</b>
Hi Chuck, just to be clear I DO NOT recommend the Sidekick for the roof mount for the heavy lenses, there are too many things to vibrate off and because the lens is attached sideways it will likely fall off if the main screw vibrates loose.
I recommend the Wimberley gimbal head. The big lenses are basically weightless on this head once you get it balanced. These two links show the difference:
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm
I have the Sidekick and have used it mainly in Alaska on fly-in trips where I also had medium-format film cameras, so could not carry a ball head and the big Wimberley, but it's a compromise with the heaviest lenses and I wouldn't use it on safari (this is one of Reichmann's problems with the rig he broke). Any time I can use the big Wimberley instead that's what I take.
<b>I think for anything less that the 500mm it is not the only solution.</b>
Yeah, I said this on my web page and in my first post here ... "We use bean bags for smaller lenses up to say 100-400 or 400 f/5.6" ...
<b>In Botswana ...</b>
My recommendation was for East Africa, where the jeeps are usually set up differently than the more open jeeps in Bots ... the original post said "I am planning a safari to Tanzania in early 2008 ..." and that's what I was writing to.
Bill
Hi Chuck, just to be clear I DO NOT recommend the Sidekick for the roof mount for the heavy lenses, there are too many things to vibrate off and because the lens is attached sideways it will likely fall off if the main screw vibrates loose.
I recommend the Wimberley gimbal head. The big lenses are basically weightless on this head once you get it balanced. These two links show the difference:
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm
http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm
I have the Sidekick and have used it mainly in Alaska on fly-in trips where I also had medium-format film cameras, so could not carry a ball head and the big Wimberley, but it's a compromise with the heaviest lenses and I wouldn't use it on safari (this is one of Reichmann's problems with the rig he broke). Any time I can use the big Wimberley instead that's what I take.
<b>I think for anything less that the 500mm it is not the only solution.</b>
Yeah, I said this on my web page and in my first post here ... "We use bean bags for smaller lenses up to say 100-400 or 400 f/5.6" ...
<b>In Botswana ...</b>
My recommendation was for East Africa, where the jeeps are usually set up differently than the more open jeeps in Bots ... the original post said "I am planning a safari to Tanzania in early 2008 ..." and that's what I was writing to.
Bill
Sep 27th, 2007 | 12:41 PM
#25
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Bill,
Thanks for your in depth explanation. I'll keep that in mind if I get the 500mm and use it in Botswana. Tanz is just different, the landscapes are more vast and the distances great. The added lens length seems to make more sense. In Bots, I often wanted less and I have considered taking a 70-200 2.8 L IS instead of the 100-400mm. For me, it keeps coming back to weight.
Cheers-Chuck
Thanks for your in depth explanation. I'll keep that in mind if I get the 500mm and use it in Botswana. Tanz is just different, the landscapes are more vast and the distances great. The added lens length seems to make more sense. In Bots, I often wanted less and I have considered taking a 70-200 2.8 L IS instead of the 100-400mm. For me, it keeps coming back to weight.
Cheers-Chuck
Sep 27th, 2007 | 01:16 PM
#26
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Chuck, Bill & Andy,
I have been watching this discussion with a great deal of interest, as I am planning a Tanzania trip in June-July 2009 and I plan to have acquired a 300/2.8IS with TCs by then (the decision being dictated by cost, size and weight). I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about support for that lens on a 30D/40D in the vehicles typical of Tanzania (we will have a private land rover for about half the trip, then be in the vehicles provided by CCA and Sayari camps). Our other camera body (XTi) will be fitted with the 100-400 or 70-200/2.8, as conditions dictate, but we hand-hold those lenses to generally good effect anyway.
I was thinking just to take several bean bags, but I am curious if you would suggest a monopod or some sort of bracket setup instead. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
I have been watching this discussion with a great deal of interest, as I am planning a Tanzania trip in June-July 2009 and I plan to have acquired a 300/2.8IS with TCs by then (the decision being dictated by cost, size and weight). I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about support for that lens on a 30D/40D in the vehicles typical of Tanzania (we will have a private land rover for about half the trip, then be in the vehicles provided by CCA and Sayari camps). Our other camera body (XTi) will be fitted with the 100-400 or 70-200/2.8, as conditions dictate, but we hand-hold those lenses to generally good effect anyway.
I was thinking just to take several bean bags, but I am curious if you would suggest a monopod or some sort of bracket setup instead. Looking forward to your thoughts.
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
Sep 27th, 2007 | 01:33 PM
#27
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Chris, as you can probably guess, I use a bean bag for all support needs from wide angle to super telephoto. I use pop top vehicles in Tanzania, and this works great for me. I have never stayed at Sayari, as I usually have my own private camps setup in the area, but I would expect them to have open-sided vehicles with a canvas top. I am sure somebody else will chime in here about open-sided vehicles, but I have had good success with both bean bags and also with a wimberly mount (either attached to a metal bar or attached to a tripod with 2 legs on the floor and one shortened leg on the seat, all secured with bungee cords and/or gaffer tape). It really depends on how many people are also in the vehicle with you. If it is only 1 per row, you have it easy. If more, be prepared to try out different scenarios.
If you have picked up one thing from this discussion, it is that different solutions work for different people. Just be prepared to modify or adandon one idea for another if it doesn't work out. Choices are a good thing!
If you have picked up one thing from this discussion, it is that different solutions work for different people. Just be prepared to modify or adandon one idea for another if it doesn't work out. Choices are a good thing!
Sep 27th, 2007 | 03:27 PM
#28
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 0
Chris, I'd probably just bring a couple of bean bags for the situation you describe. The 300 with those bodies is about 4 lbs lighter than the 500 with the 1D bodies, and sharing a jeep half the trip will also make it easier to use beanbags.
Bill
Bill
Sep 27th, 2007 | 03:50 PM
#29
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Chris,
Your rig is pretty much what I'm using, the 300 2.8 L IS with and without a 1.4X TC and a 100-400mm on a second body. The bbean bags will work fine in as Bill and Andy suggest. The 300mm is a wonderful lens and I was shocked to learn how little quality was lost using a 1.4X TC. Once you get that lens, you will discover how hard it is to take the hood on and off. I leave it on at all times and pull a neoprene Hood Hat (OpTech) over the hood for prtection. sometimes I keep both bodies and lenses in a bag on the middle seat ready to go. The bean bags are at my feet and ready to throw onto the rooftop or grab bar at a moments notice. I have taken a monopod but really didn't find I used it much. I have also read that the 300mm takes a 2X TC quite well. I remain skeptical but many birders like the combination. Consider the 400mm DO as well. The 400mm f4 DO is smaller than the 300mm 2.8 L IS and on you cameras, you would gain an additional 160mm. It is also my understanding (not from experience) based on reviews, that the Canon teleconverters are significantly better, at least with Canon lenses.
Regards-Chuck
Your rig is pretty much what I'm using, the 300 2.8 L IS with and without a 1.4X TC and a 100-400mm on a second body. The bbean bags will work fine in as Bill and Andy suggest. The 300mm is a wonderful lens and I was shocked to learn how little quality was lost using a 1.4X TC. Once you get that lens, you will discover how hard it is to take the hood on and off. I leave it on at all times and pull a neoprene Hood Hat (OpTech) over the hood for prtection. sometimes I keep both bodies and lenses in a bag on the middle seat ready to go. The bean bags are at my feet and ready to throw onto the rooftop or grab bar at a moments notice. I have taken a monopod but really didn't find I used it much. I have also read that the 300mm takes a 2X TC quite well. I remain skeptical but many birders like the combination. Consider the 400mm DO as well. The 400mm f4 DO is smaller than the 300mm 2.8 L IS and on you cameras, you would gain an additional 160mm. It is also my understanding (not from experience) based on reviews, that the Canon teleconverters are significantly better, at least with Canon lenses.
Regards-Chuck
Sep 27th, 2007 | 05:02 PM
#30
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Excellent, thank you all for your comments. Now I just need to get the money together for all this gear!
Chuck, I have also read that the 300/2.8+2xTC works well, and I have seen quite a few bird pictures on PBase with this combination that seem very sharp and detailed. I plan to try it out well before the safari on some local birds and see how it looks.
I have not read very positive things about the 400/4 DO. Certainly it is lighter than the 300/2.8, but the reviews I have seen describe it as significantly lacking in sharpness and contrast in comparison to the 300/2.8 or even the 300/2.8+1.4xTC. Those kind of comments, plus the price tag, have put me off the 400/4 as a lens on my desired list. Frankly, for that much money, I would just get a 500/4 and deal with mounting and carrying it around.
The 300/2.8 also appealed to me for dealing with close-in animals in low light. I know from experience with my 70-200/2.8 just how great that aperture performs in low light, and it is tempting to have a longer focal length that would be equally capable in low light. The 400/4 or 500/4 won't give me that option. Maybe it isn't worth much in real life, but it seemed appealing in theory.
Thanks again for your comments.
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
Chuck, I have also read that the 300/2.8+2xTC works well, and I have seen quite a few bird pictures on PBase with this combination that seem very sharp and detailed. I plan to try it out well before the safari on some local birds and see how it looks.
I have not read very positive things about the 400/4 DO. Certainly it is lighter than the 300/2.8, but the reviews I have seen describe it as significantly lacking in sharpness and contrast in comparison to the 300/2.8 or even the 300/2.8+1.4xTC. Those kind of comments, plus the price tag, have put me off the 400/4 as a lens on my desired list. Frankly, for that much money, I would just get a 500/4 and deal with mounting and carrying it around.
The 300/2.8 also appealed to me for dealing with close-in animals in low light. I know from experience with my 70-200/2.8 just how great that aperture performs in low light, and it is tempting to have a longer focal length that would be equally capable in low light. The 400/4 or 500/4 won't give me that option. Maybe it isn't worth much in real life, but it seemed appealing in theory.
Thanks again for your comments.
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
Sep 27th, 2007 | 05:35 PM
#31
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Chris-
If you are balking at the price of a 300mm f/2.8, I might suggest renting a 500mm lens. I spoke with the owner of lensprotogo.com the other day, and it looks like it would be around $450 for a rental for a typical length of a safari. I was quite impressed, actually. I absolutely love the 300mm f/2.8, but I did sell it a few years ago to fund my 2nd 500mm lens that I put into my rental pool to offer up to safari customers as a value added service. Heck, I even shlepp the darned thing to Africa!! But seriously, the 400mm DO is a nice lens but it is certainly no 300mm f/2.8. You lose quality to gain the weight savings. I have a DO that I use frequently, but might sell it to help fund a 1DsMkIII this year. Yikes.
Either way you go, you really cannot go wrong with any Canon telephoto prime. I still look back at my 300mm f/4 shots and I am still extremly happy with them.
If you are balking at the price of a 300mm f/2.8, I might suggest renting a 500mm lens. I spoke with the owner of lensprotogo.com the other day, and it looks like it would be around $450 for a rental for a typical length of a safari. I was quite impressed, actually. I absolutely love the 300mm f/2.8, but I did sell it a few years ago to fund my 2nd 500mm lens that I put into my rental pool to offer up to safari customers as a value added service. Heck, I even shlepp the darned thing to Africa!! But seriously, the 400mm DO is a nice lens but it is certainly no 300mm f/2.8. You lose quality to gain the weight savings. I have a DO that I use frequently, but might sell it to help fund a 1DsMkIII this year. Yikes.
Either way you go, you really cannot go wrong with any Canon telephoto prime. I still look back at my 300mm f/4 shots and I am still extremly happy with them.
Sep 27th, 2007 | 05:40 PM
#32
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Chris,
I struggled with the same decision last year. I decided on the 300mm but it was a very difficult decision for me. I found many great examples of what the 400mm DO could deliver and I must say that it is also an impressive lens. However, I knew that if I got the 400mm, I would have no excuse to buy the 500mm. So...if you get the 300mm the next obvious addition must be a 500mm. What spouse can argue with that rationale. I rally love the 300mm 2.8 L IS lens, however, one thing I must now take into consideration more conciously is depth of field. You are probably more accustomed to the 2.8 aperature, I found that I needed to stop down in order to capture all parts of the scene I was interested in. For example, two Malachite Kingfishers feeding one another proved difficult. One was always out of focus. I know how to handle that now but I was wrong in the field and so have fewer images then I would have liked. The 500mm is a beast but a beautiful one. Another possibility for you to consider might be a 300mm f4 L IS. It is much smaller and less costly and is supposed to take a 1.4XTC pretty well. Of course you end up with a 5.6 lens but you might also be able to swing a 500mm in addition. All great things to think about . By the way, didn;t you do a Grollia Treck last year with the 100-400mm. I recall you got some awesome shots.
Cheers-Chuck
I struggled with the same decision last year. I decided on the 300mm but it was a very difficult decision for me. I found many great examples of what the 400mm DO could deliver and I must say that it is also an impressive lens. However, I knew that if I got the 400mm, I would have no excuse to buy the 500mm. So...if you get the 300mm the next obvious addition must be a 500mm. What spouse can argue with that rationale
. I rally love the 300mm 2.8 L IS lens, however, one thing I must now take into consideration more conciously is depth of field. You are probably more accustomed to the 2.8 aperature, I found that I needed to stop down in order to capture all parts of the scene I was interested in. For example, two Malachite Kingfishers feeding one another proved difficult. One was always out of focus. I know how to handle that now but I was wrong in the field and so have fewer images then I would have liked. The 500mm is a beast but a beautiful one. Another possibility for you to consider might be a 300mm f4 L IS. It is much smaller and less costly and is supposed to take a 1.4XTC pretty well. Of course you end up with a 5.6 lens but you might also be able to swing a 500mm in addition. All great things to think about . By the way, didn;t you do a Grollia Treck last year with the 100-400mm. I recall you got some awesome shots.Cheers-Chuck
Sep 27th, 2007 | 05:45 PM
#33
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Renting is definitely an option I have in mind if the trip rolls around before I buy the new lens. In fact, I had planned to rent a 300/2.8 and try it out before buying it. I am planning a trip to the St. Augustine Alligator Farm Rookery in the spring to shoot some birds and figured that would be a good test. It certainly will give me an idea of the logistics of carrying and shooting with that lens. I may also rent a 500/4 for a week and try it out the same way -- the difference being that I would absolutely need a tripod and Wimberley head to even use it -- no handholding or mere monopod use with that one, I don't think!
We have a lens rental place here in Atlanta (Professional Photo Resources) that rents lenses by the day, and the weekend rate is very reasonable, even for the big primes. In fact, I rented a 70-200/2.8 from there to try out before I bought one. For a longer rental I think the web-based rental places cost less.
Thanks again.
Chris
We have a lens rental place here in Atlanta (Professional Photo Resources) that rents lenses by the day, and the weekend rate is very reasonable, even for the big primes. In fact, I rented a 70-200/2.8 from there to try out before I bought one. For a longer rental I think the web-based rental places cost less.
Thanks again.
Chris
Sep 27th, 2007 | 05:49 PM
#34
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Chuck, thanks for those thoughts. The DOF with a 2.8 aperture definitely was a surprise to me when I first started using my 70-200/2.8. In fact, I usuall shoot that lens at f4 unless light conditions or an artistic choice make me want to open it up wider. But at 300mm the DOF would be even less, except for a much more distant subject.
I did do four gorilla treks earlier this year (January) with the 100-400 and I was really happy with the results (the pics are in my PBase gallery). Thank you for remembering those. We just got back last weekend from Mongolia and China, and I think I got some really nice pictures of wild horses and Demoiselle Cranes in Mongolia with the 100-400. When I process them, we'll see how they turned out ...
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
I did do four gorilla treks earlier this year (January) with the 100-400 and I was really happy with the results (the pics are in my PBase gallery). Thank you for remembering those. We just got back last weekend from Mongolia and China, and I think I got some really nice pictures of wild horses and Demoiselle Cranes in Mongolia with the 100-400. When I process them, we'll see how they turned out ...
Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis
Sep 27th, 2007 | 06:29 PM
#35
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Chris,
I don't think you'll be disappointed by the 300/2.8 IS with TCs. It's what I've been using for nearly three years now (I'm not in a position to get a 500/4) and it's light enough to use with ease in a vehicle with beanbag or monopod (I'm talking the open vehicles of southern Africa) and even for short walks with monopod (a few kilometres). I have a 100-400 IS but rarely take it on safari.
John
I don't think you'll be disappointed by the 300/2.8 IS with TCs. It's what I've been using for nearly three years now (I'm not in a position to get a 500/4) and it's light enough to use with ease in a vehicle with beanbag or monopod (I'm talking the open vehicles of southern Africa) and even for short walks with monopod (a few kilometres). I have a 100-400 IS but rarely take it on safari.
John
Sep 27th, 2007 | 06:52 PM
#36
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
John, that is a persuasive endorsement considering it is coming from you. I do think that the 300/2.8 is the right choice for my budget and needs, but I will have some opportunities to test that before the next trip to Africa.
On the point about ease of carrying around, I ran into a photographer using a 1D body and a 400/2.8 a couple of weeks ago in China. I could not believe how big and heavy that rig looked to try to deal with!
Chris
On the point about ease of carrying around, I ran into a photographer using a 1D body and a 400/2.8 a couple of weeks ago in China. I could not believe how big and heavy that rig looked to try to deal with!
Chris
Sep 27th, 2007 | 08:42 PM
#37
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Chris,
Not long after I bought my 400/2.8 a few years ago, I was foolish enough to carry it with EOS1n and suitably heavy tripod around a few kilometres of wetland boardwalk. Never again! Because I like walking with camera, the 300/2.8 eventually replaced the 400.
I'm looking forward to giving the 300/2.8 its second safari workout in Zambia next year. I'll have a backup EOS3 with 24-105/f4 L IS, plus a small medium format camera (a delightful Fuji GS645S Wide 60 which I bought secondhand a few years ago).
John
Not long after I bought my 400/2.8 a few years ago, I was foolish enough to carry it with EOS1n and suitably heavy tripod around a few kilometres of wetland boardwalk. Never again! Because I like walking with camera, the 300/2.8 eventually replaced the 400.
I'm looking forward to giving the 300/2.8 its second safari workout in Zambia next year. I'll have a backup EOS3 with 24-105/f4 L IS, plus a small medium format camera (a delightful Fuji GS645S Wide 60 which I bought secondhand a few years ago).
John
Sep 28th, 2007 | 06:10 AM
#39
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
The 400mm f/2.8 is an awesome lens, but the speed isn't necessary for wildlife photography in this day and age. I am finding that my shot on the 500mm are almost always between f/8 and f/14, as the depth of field needed dictates the stopping down. The 400mm is awesome, but really best for sports photography. Talk about wicked sharp!
